"a bill to end a provision in tax law that allows companies to deduct the cost of moving jobs overseas as a business expense. The bill would have given an additional tax credit for moving jobs back to the U.S."

NOW WHY would turtle-americans be against a bill like this?Time to think about making turtle soup.

I believe this would be the important thing as the lactose intolerance should be up to the HHS department thereof and not the EPA department of protection because if we are talking about the gases then maybe we should call the chemist for doing this in the fusion chamber so I am not seeing why the EPA would do the regulation of this unless they are the medical professionals.

meow said the dog:And this is the reason for which I am not the person who is the fan of the fillingbusters because these are all of the good suggestions if you do the asking of me.

Dont get me started on obstructionism. The filibuster, preventing bills which would be passed?? sighThe House has the strange reverse happening, where the majority prevents bills from being voted on, KNOWING that they would have to vote in favor of the bills or LOOK TERRIBLE.

Must really suck, KNOWING that the bills are righteous and should be passed and working so hard to prevent having to vote for the truth. or vote against something which is popular and looking foolish for doing so.

/I get that both houses get to make their own rules, but wouldnt it be nice if say, 30% could FORCE a floor vote???/ HAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH/sigh

GAT_00:kronicfeld: Someone will shiat on you, but your point is well made.

There is very rarely such a thing as a well made point involving Hitler. I don't know what was in the part you didn't quote, but there was no brilliant argument in the part you did.

Ahh, GAT, the only one who I actually care about who put me on ignore.

I know you wont see this, and maybe if someone can quote me, you will be able to see this.

I was using the authors simplistic logic to show that the argument for abolishing the filibuster based upon things they liked that did not pass was a horrible argument because the author fails to remember the negative things that would have passed without the filibuster.

cman:I was using the authors simplistic logic to show that the argument for abolishing the filibuster based upon things they liked that did not pass was a horrible argument because the author fails to remember the negative things that would have passed without the filibuster.

Can you cite any examples?

Not meant to be rude, I actually would like to know. Personally I think the EPA unable to regulate greenhouse gasses would be a bad thing, but that's just me.

I believe this would be the important thing as the lactose intolerance should be up to the HHS department thereof and not the EPA department of protection because if we are talking about the gases then maybe we should call the chemist for doing this in the fusion chamber so I am not seeing why the EPA would do the regulation of this unless they are the medical professionals.

I dunno what sort of 'erb you're working with but you need to a lot less of it. Or a whole lot more. What you're doing now ain't cuttin' it

RedPhoenix122:cman: I was using the authors simplistic logic to show that the argument for abolishing the filibuster based upon things they liked that did not pass was a horrible argument because the author fails to remember the negative things that would have passed without the filibuster.

Can you cite any examples?

Not meant to be rude, I actually would like to know. Personally I think the EPA unable to regulate greenhouse gasses would be a bad thing, but that's just me.

I cannot remember any specific real life examples, but there was a movie that did show the positives of a filibuster: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I know using a movie is a cop out, a weak form, but it is the only thing that I can think of at the top of my mind.

cman:RedPhoenix122: cman: I was using the authors simplistic logic to show that the argument for abolishing the filibuster based upon things they liked that did not pass was a horrible argument because the author fails to remember the negative things that would have passed without the filibuster.

Can you cite any examples?

Not meant to be rude, I actually would like to know. Personally I think the EPA unable to regulate greenhouse gasses would be a bad thing, but that's just me.

I cannot remember any specific real life examples, but there was a movie that did show the positives of a filibuster: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I know using a movie is a cop out, a weak form, but it is the only thing that I can think of at the top of my mind.

Wait, I remember one.

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[32] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option", although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option".

GAT_00:kronicfeld: Someone will shiat on you, but your point is well made.

There is very rarely such a thing as a well made point involving Hitler. I don't know what was in the part you didn't quote, but there was no brilliant argument in the part you did.

The part you didn't see was "Ok, thanks for sharing." That's it.

/the reason cman mentioned Hitler is because of the anti-abortion argument that if you're pregnant and get an abortion, there's a chance you would end up murdering the next Einstein (or Jobs), and the counter-argument that if you carry the child to term instead of getting an abortion there's a chance that the child would end up being the next Hitler//sometimes you have to use a Godwin to counter absurd arguments like that. See also the people claiming that Obama didn't kill Bin Laden, the SEALs did -- and the counter-argument that Hitler didn't kill all those Jews, the Nazis did

You've got 90 billion dollars to piss away by throwing it at your friends in the non-existent green energy industry but you continue to bemoan and cry the oil companies?

President Obama's 2011 jobs proposal

More stimulus to be used on "shovel ready" projects and to pump up union supporters.

Raise tax rates on millionaires

Only a liberal could think "The private sector isn't doing so hot these days, let's take more money out of it and use it with all the efficiency and competence of the government" is actually a good idea.

namatad:"a bill to end a provision in tax law that allows companies to deduct the cost of moving jobs overseas as a business expense. The bill would have given an additional tax credit for moving jobs back to the U.S."

NOW WHY would turtle-americans be against a bill like this?Time to think about making turtle soup.

iaazathot:The filibuster doesn't need to be struck down, just modified. Require they actually have to be physically present, reading the phone book or the Joy of Cooking, just like in the old days.

You could also lower the threshold of votes necessary to overcome the filibuster.

Has anyone heard any talk of this officially?

Of course not, because only liberals and only those liberals NOT holding office want to suggest it. Working for a living is hard, better to let the "filibuster" continue than have to actually stand up and Filibuster things.

King Something:GAT_00: kronicfeld: Someone will shiat on you, but your point is well made.

There is very rarely such a thing as a well made point involving Hitler. I don't know what was in the part you didn't quote, but there was no brilliant argument in the part you did.

The part you didn't see was "Ok, thanks for sharing." That's it.

/the reason cman mentioned Hitler is because of the anti-abortion argument that if you're pregnant and get an abortion, there's a chance you would end up murdering the next Einstein (or Jobs), and the counter-argument that if you carry the child to term instead of getting an abortion there's a chance that the child would end up being the next Hitler//sometimes you have to use a Godwin to counter absurd arguments like that. See also the people claiming that Obama didn't kill Bin Laden, the SEALs did -- and the counter-argument that Hitler didn't kill all those Jews, the Nazis did

And the statistical improbabilities of any of those outcomes make the whole argument stupid. Extreme arguments such as those only serve to discredit the person making them.

randomjsa:I love how two of those relate to raising taxes on oil companies.

You've got 90 billion dollars to piss away by throwing it at your friends in the non-existent green energy industry but you continue to bemoan and cry the oil companies?

President Obama's 2011 jobs proposal

More stimulus to be used on "shovel ready" projects and to pump up union supporters.

Raise tax rates on millionaires

Only a liberal could think "The private sector isn't doing so hot these days, let's take more money out of it and use it with all the efficiency and competence of the government" is actually a good idea.

The top 1% are just sitting on their money. That's what always happens in a bad economy. Give it to the middle class and the poor, it'll work it's way up again, don't worry.

cman:cman: RedPhoenix122: cman: I was using the authors simplistic logic to show that the argument for abolishing the filibuster based upon things they liked that did not pass was a horrible argument because the author fails to remember the negative things that would have passed without the filibuster.

Can you cite any examples?

Not meant to be rude, I actually would like to know. Personally I think the EPA unable to regulate greenhouse gasses would be a bad thing, but that's just me.

I cannot remember any specific real life examples, but there was a movie that did show the positives of a filibuster: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I know using a movie is a cop out, a weak form, but it is the only thing that I can think of at the top of my mind.

Wait, I remember one.

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[32] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option", although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option".

cman:cman: RedPhoenix122: cman: I was using the authors simplistic logic to show that the argument for abolishing the filibuster based upon things they liked that did not pass was a horrible argument because the author fails to remember the negative things that would have passed without the filibuster.

Can you cite any examples?

Not meant to be rude, I actually would like to know. Personally I think the EPA unable to regulate greenhouse gasses would be a bad thing, but that's just me.

I cannot remember any specific real life examples, but there was a movie that did show the positives of a filibuster: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I know using a movie is a cop out, a weak form, but it is the only thing that I can think of at the top of my mind.

Wait, I remember one.

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[32] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option", although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option".

That one seems kinda week, I'll stick with Mr. Smith.

The filibuster is important, because sometimes the majority IS a tyrant. But the current rules are bullshiat and need a-changin'.

GAT_00:King Something: GAT_00: kronicfeld: Someone will shiat on you, but your point is well made.

There is very rarely such a thing as a well made point involving Hitler. I don't know what was in the part you didn't quote, but there was no brilliant argument in the part you did.

The part you didn't see was "Ok, thanks for sharing." That's it.

/the reason cman mentioned Hitler is because of the anti-abortion argument that if you're pregnant and get an abortion, there's a chance you would end up murdering the next Einstein (or Jobs), and the counter-argument that if you carry the child to term instead of getting an abortion there's a chance that the child would end up being the next Hitler//sometimes you have to use a Godwin to counter absurd arguments like that. See also the people claiming that Obama didn't kill Bin Laden, the SEALs did -- and the counter-argument that Hitler didn't kill all those Jews, the Nazis did

And the statistical improbabilities of any of those outcomes make the whole argument stupid. Extreme arguments such as those only serve to discredit the person making them.

Hence the Hitler counter-argument -- its purpose is to discredit the person making the argument being countered.

randomjsa:I love how two of those relate to raising taxes on oil companies.

You've got 90 billion dollars to piss away by throwing it at your friends in the non-existent green energy industry but you continue to bemoan and cry the oil companies?

President Obama's 2011 jobs proposal

More stimulus to be used on "shovel ready" projects and to pump up union supporters.

Raise tax rates on millionaires

Only a liberal could think "The private sector isn't doing so hot these days, let's take more money out of it and use it with all the efficiency and competence of the government" is actually a good idea.

Why would the private sector make roads and bridges? Or do you think all roads should be toll roads?

TheBigJerk:cman: cman: RedPhoenix122: cman: I was using the authors simplistic logic to show that the argument for abolishing the filibuster based upon things they liked that did not pass was a horrible argument because the author fails to remember the negative things that would have passed without the filibuster.

Can you cite any examples?

Not meant to be rude, I actually would like to know. Personally I think the EPA unable to regulate greenhouse gasses would be a bad thing, but that's just me.

I cannot remember any specific real life examples, but there was a movie that did show the positives of a filibuster: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I know using a movie is a cop out, a weak form, but it is the only thing that I can think of at the top of my mind.

Wait, I remember one.

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[32] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option", although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option".

That one seems kinda weekweak, I'll stick with Mr. Smith.

The filibuster is important, because sometimes the majority IS a tyrant. But the current rules are bullshiat and need a-changin'.

The original point of the filibuster was to make sure everyone had time to read and think about the bill. Why not restore that? New rules are that any senator can call for the vote to be delayed, and the bill will be voted on in one weeks time. That way things aren't rammed through, but there is reasonable time to consider the bill and the minority party can't just shut congress down.

I agree with this direction. Televising a bunch of senators reading the phone book might make the average person take an interest in the legislation being discussed and put pressure one way or the other.

That being said, Reid better enact some sort of filibuster reform or get rid of the means to do it because you know damn well if/when the GOP has a chance to use this loophole to their advantage they will do so in a second. The only suprising thing is that they didn't think of this when they had the opportunity.

randomjsa:I love how two of those relate to raising taxes on oil companies.

You've got 90 billion dollars to piss away by throwing it at your friends in the non-existent green energy industry but you continue to bemoan and cry the oil companies?

President Obama's 2011 jobs proposal

More stimulus to be used on "shovel ready" projects and to pump up union supporters.

Raise tax rates on millionaires

Only a liberal could think "The private sector isn't doing so hot these days, let's take more money out of it and use it with all the efficiency and competence of the government" is actually a good idea.

So, the problem with the economy is that the rich just don't have enough money?

fusillade762:The U.S. Postal Service has faced mounting financial troubles because of increased use of the Internet.

Oh great, this bullshiat again.

"Millennial" here,

numbers of important communications I sent/received before email was common: 7, in 13 years.number of important communications I sent/received after email was common: eleventy billion in 15 years.number of important communications I sent/received via snail mail after email common: probably about 500 in 15 years.

randomjsa:I love how two of those relate to raising taxes on oil companies.

You've got 90 billion dollars to piss away by throwing it at your friends in the non-existent green energy industry but you continue to bemoan and cry the oil companies?

President Obama's 2011 jobs proposal

More stimulus to be used on "shovel ready" projects and to pump up union supporters.

Raise tax rates on millionaires

Only a liberal could think "The private sector isn't doing so hot these days, let's take more money out of it and use it with all the efficiency and competence of the government" is actually a good idea.

Le Bomb Suprize:That being said, Reid better enact some sort of filibuster reform or get rid of the means to do it because you know damn well if/when the GOP has a chance to use this loophole to their advantage they will do so in a second. The only suprising thing is that they didn't think of this when they had the opportunity.

Doc Daneeka:Le Bomb Suprize: That being said, Reid better enact some sort of filibuster reform or get rid of the means to do it because you know damn well if/when the GOP has a chance to use this loophole to their advantage they will do so in a second. The only suprising thing is that they didn't think of this when they had the opportunity.

Because the change would be done during the rules vote session where a simple majority of 50 is the only thing required. Harry Reid recently said that he is going to go after filibuster reform in the next rules session.

Xetal:The original point of the filibuster was to make sure everyone had time to read and think about the bill. Why not restore that? New rules are that any senator can call for the vote to be delayed, and the bill will be voted on in one weeks time. That way things aren't rammed through, but there is reasonable time to consider the bill and the minority party can't just shut congress down.

Good points all. I think if the last 4 years (especially the last two) have taught us anything it's how often the filibuster rules are being abused and how badly in need of reform they are.

Britney Spear's Speculum:fusillade762: The U.S. Postal Service has faced mounting financial troubles because of increased use of the Internet.

Oh great, this bullshiat again.

"Millennial" here,

numbers of important communications I sent/received before email was common: 7, in 13 years.number of important communications I sent/received after email was common: eleventy billion in 15 years.number of important communications I sent/received via snail mail after email common: probably about 500 in 15 years.

The USPS was doing just fine until the Republicans forced them (in 2005?) to fund their pension fund 75 YEARS in advance. That was the OP's point.